![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Card. Castrillon makes some comments
Our friends at Rorate have an excerpt of an interview His Eminence Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos, Pres. of the PCED, gave to El Tiempo.
Here is … well… an excerpt of the excerpt…
We enter in medias res when the Cardinal mentions that on stepping down from his post he is pleased with the projects he set for himself.
And what projects were these?
In Ecclesia Dei, I set three goals for myself, and I could accomplish them. First, that all priests of the world could be able to celebrate the Mass freely, that the ancient Rite were freed without opposition to the new one, and not being obligatory. Second, to make the richness of this rite known; and, third, to remove the excommunication of the Lefebvrian bishops, and to bring them closer to the Church once again.
How did the scandal due to this last issue end?
It was temporary, but it caused much damage. They (the Lefebvrians) were excommunicated because they were ordained without an authorization, not for anything else. When the excommunication was lifted, the declarations, erroneous, of Bishop Williamson, who denied the Nazi Holocaust, appeared. But one thing was unrelated to the other.
We have a long way to go on His Eminence’s second goal. However, it goes forward “brick by brick”!
Comment by Scott Arbuckle — 3 July 2009 @ 11:58 amIs it true that his time ends tomorrow, july 4th?
Comment by Marcos ASPV — 3 July 2009 @ 2:30 pmSigh.
Bishop Williamson’s views on history are as irrelevant to the matter at hand as his favourite food.
He does not deny nor defend that the Nazis murdered hundreds of thousands of people including Archbishop Lefebvre’s father.
The commonly received history and the figure six million are not de fide.
Comment by The young fogey — 3 July 2009 @ 3:32 pmTYF,
I agree. I saw the whole interview, and, while I think he was foolish to get engaged on the subject of the Holocaust, I’m not convinced that he was entirely out of line.
I would like to know more about the subject, but it is hard to get info when nobody has really counted the numbers, and when people with varying viewpoints are not only shouted down, but are imprisoned.
What was it Shakespeare said about protesting too much? At any rate, if received wisdom extirpates honest inquiry, we can’t learn a whole lot about anything, including our mistakes.
Paul
P.S. Sorry Fr. Z, if this post tends toward polluting your blog with an uncomfortable subject, you can certainly delete it. I certainly would not stand for my blog getting hijacked by sensitive off topic discussions.
Comment by Paul — 3 July 2009 @ 6:55 pmSomething doesn’t jive. Card. Hoyos set himself 2 of the 3 goals that Bishop Fellay set for himself? Really?
Comment by L. — 4 July 2009 @ 12:45 amif only he could take time to ensure that we all have access to the old rite of mass in every parish by the first sunday in advent. those who are being treated as schismatic because they request what is supposedly their right may not be able to withstand further insults and injuries. they shouldn’t have had a summorum pontificum if its actual intention was to set people up for humiliation.
Comment by stigmatized — 4 July 2009 @ 1:44 amI guess I just do not understand the fuss and I get a little bored with it. We have the EF and it’s to be celebrated if requested by a “stable group” of the faithful, correct? So if the liturgy flap can finally be laid to rest and the excommunications lifted, what prevents SSPX from reconciliation with Rome?
I suspect Williamson’s views are not representative of the larger group, but because of his position there, his views cast a certain generalization for those of us looking in from the outside.
Look – why can’t we have both good liturgy AND good social doctrine? And by good, I simply mean faithful to the teaching Magisterium, Scripture, AND Tradition. The three are not supposed to be opposed, you know?
Comment by Agnes — 4 July 2009 @ 11:06 amAnges
Having done quite a bit of research on the SSPX I believe that the main obstacle to regluarising their status is that they don’t trust the vast majoirity of Bishops and Cardinals, even before 1988 the society took ALOT of flack from various quarters for adhering to the ‘old way’, case in point from ,74 onwards the majority of French Bishops would not Incardate priests trained at Econe, they are also concerned that Bishops will simply prevent them from setting up shop and celebrating the EF (in the 05/05 edition of their magazine Bshp Felley commented that quite often that Bishops would only allow the FSSP into a diocese if the SSPX set up shop there as well)
Comment by Jack — 4 July 2009 @ 5:46 pmjust to clarify the ending of the last post: after the SSPX set up shop there, the thinking of the Bishops being that allowing the FSSP instore is the only way to avoid losing parishinors to the SSPX
Comment by Jack — 4 July 2009 @ 6:02 pm